As the developers of Open Journal Systems, Open Conference Systems, Open Harvester Systems, and Open Monograph Press, the PKP team are experts in helping journal managers and conference organizers make the most of their online publishing projects. PKP Publishing Services offers support for:

As a customer of PKP Publishing Services, you will not only receive direct, personalized support from the PKP Development Team, but will be contributing to the ongoing development of the PKP applications. All funds raised by PKP Publishing Services go directly toward enhancing our free, open source software. For more information, please contact us.

Forum rules
This forum is meant for general questions about the usability of OJS from an everyday user's perspective: journal managers, authors, and editors are welcome to post questions here, as are librarians and other support staff. We welcome general questions about the role of OJS and how the workflow works, as well as specific function- or user-related questions.

What to do if you have general, workflow or usability questions about OJS:

1. Read the documentation. We've written documentation to cover from OJS basics to system administration and code development, and we encourage you to read it.

2. take a look at the tutorials. We will continue to add tutorials covering OJS basics as time goes on.

3. Post a question. Questions are always welcome here, but if it's a technical question you should probably post to the OJS Technical Support subforum; if you have a development question, try the OJS Development subforum.

I have some suggestions for enhancements of the resubmission process. (Apologies if the suggestions have been made elsewhere; I looked but couldn't find any.)

All my suggestions relate to the review process in economics, in which papers are submitted in an uneditable format (currently pdf) and referees submit reports in the same format. No one directly "edits" the paper until it is in copyediting.

Author: When an author submits a revised version of a paper, she should be able to submit also, in separate files, responses to the referees' and editor's comments. She should also be able to submit additional "supplementary" files.

Editor: The editor handling the paper should be able to designate which of the submitted files are visible to which referees. (I realise this is complicated, but the OJS team hasn't shrunk from complications in the past!)

Referee: A referee of a revised version of a paper should be able to see her previous report(s), the previous reports of other referees that the editor chooses to make visible to her, and the responses to referees submitted by the author that the editor has made visible to her.

(This suggests to me that a "file visibility" table that records which users can see which file is needed.)

Valueable suggestions, as always. While we now need to weigh ways of improving our handling of the resubmission process, let me review how OJS 2.1 can be used along the lines suggested:

Author: Can submit in addition to Author Revised Version, supplementary files in any format and with any title.

Editor: These files can be reviewed by the editor and made accessible to reviewers, on file by file basis, in addition to the Revised Version.

Reviewers: Can upload only one additional file (beyond Comments) -- and this needs to be expanded -- in any format, which the editor can decide to make available to author; can access previous comments and be sent BCC copies of other reviewers, at the point of the resubmit decision.

Author: Can submit in addition to Author Revised Version, supplementary files in any format and with any title.

In the version I have installed (2.1.0-1), an author can upload an "Author version" when resubmitting a paper---and can in fact upload more than one such version (a point I didn't realise when I posted my previous message), but there is no way that I can see for the author to attach labels (or "titles") to these files. The files uploaded by the author appear as a list of "Author version" files on the Section Editor's page.

Editor: These files can be reviewed by the editor and made accessible to reviewers, on file by file basis, in addition to the Revised Version

How do I do that? I don't see a means of doing so on the Section Editor's page---I must be missing something.

When the editor advises the author to resubmit a revised version for review (resubmit for review), the editor can ask the author to also directly address the reviewers' concerns in a separate document, which the author should upload as a Supplementary File on the Summary page for the submission in question. The author can also upload the data set for the paper as a Supplementary File.

For each file uploaded as a SF, the author indicates whether they wish the reviewers to be able to see the document...
[ ] Present file to reviewers (without metadata), as it will not compromise blind review.
The editor can accept or "over-rule" this, making the SF available to reviewers by clicking...
[ ] Present file to reviewers
...which appears with each SF.

I was wrong about the SF titles, and it amounts to a bug. The file names are numbered, and only the author can currently see the metadata, such as the true title. This we will fix for the next release (along with giving reviewers the right to upload additional files), but in the meantime, you are able to advise authors on which SFs to upload, and let reviewers know which SFs you have made available to them to consult.

Further, and a correction, the editor is able to see the metadata for the SF, and to edit it (as is the copyeditor) in the sumbission's Summary page. Still, the reviewers do not see the metadata, as it contains ownership info, but, as noted, can download the SF, with the editor's permission.

Thanks---I had not thought of looking under the "summary" tab. I guess I (and the authors submitting to my journal) would find it helpful if the "Add a supplementary file" link were also on the Review page, in the area where a revised version is uploaded. I would also prefer a special class of Supplementary File that is a response to referees (with limited metadata and not destined for publication). But I see that the functionality I was asking about exists and with a bit of tweaking will fit exactly what we want.